<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (10) TMI 380 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200651</link>
    <description>Where the rent capitalisation method is used to determine a building&#039;s value, reversionary value is not to be added separately to that valuation. The Allahabad High Court followed its earlier decision on the same valuation issue and reaffirmed that the capitalised rent figure already represents the building value for this purpose. The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, with no separate addition for reversionary value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:48:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (10) TMI 380 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200651</link>
      <description>Where the rent capitalisation method is used to determine a building&#039;s value, reversionary value is not to be added separately to that valuation. The Allahabad High Court followed its earlier decision on the same valuation issue and reaffirmed that the capitalised rent figure already represents the building value for this purpose. The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, with no separate addition for reversionary value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>